From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4A131D12EB; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724252137; cv=none; b=Rs3tFVtZ7dLebOBJjiEHOPgWSRrPfYHDUfoSuebjrMGHsaQakGwNnepI6hO9vzQZoL6EjqmYzSbFunwxWG7QB2hjwDU0rbm2E0lw0DbgMYNlOSIUNuvuGIxHZevPSYytnvc6FxzNB2qyMUwD3CGSeiB/Bwxs+KIZr+Ejdbp9oVU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724252137; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TIFVaagSz09E5Eurdb4MKH7NIHBWsKl6cQQ7OmlJhUk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=S+QVWp36Ga18QCDuRDhhJKTNF13PyZvEds9Osj2/SxMLh7xWOcI63rHhbqvFQV03of/GMqCcqS7nkx3GKZhRjJqFL20yGiYF/ez7U/fdzicoXYKJHsl1lCfzxVLAqL/u8GBM9A5NQaRVMt+eiNLnoAClaGZIIrWFegS4BesbvUg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RMuXXA8K; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="RMuXXA8K" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4EB3C32781; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:55:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724252137; bh=TIFVaagSz09E5Eurdb4MKH7NIHBWsKl6cQQ7OmlJhUk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RMuXXA8KeEO88iXbCGH+P7DnXtCzccn9F2jGB5r8+iF7Jghbbh8gBcatOMm5V8sgu xZL/mxH6n5wLujjJeYcELIWLnCDM3QiT3Vxuj46Xzy38xxH8qw14m2cD8dxmj2xC02 hpCzlpIhhRD51mPkYJaYkUMJWuBDxPhNXHZMLFOfH4duIcfkLXKAXr+bgQKengNZch TKOpZNwRyH7YFDHSZ8/WYGfayZRdQeKZeOI0beWFOLrzpCh9PmyWJgN3WXaexY8Vg6 +Rnpv70Se/xx3bG2tHIGTpMR1XFUz2uiLa6Xr81OPO8tI1Tzz1KgfG/4CGbPpL6s4A QJeIl+FOm5eOA== Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:55:33 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Cong Wang Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang , syzbot+58c03971700330ce14d8@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, John Fastabend , Jakub Sitnicki Subject: Re: [Patch bpf] tcp_bpf: fix return value of tcp_bpf_sendmsg() Message-ID: <20240821145533.GA2164@kernel.org> References: <20240821030744.320934-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240821030744.320934-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 08:07:44PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > From: Cong Wang > > When we cork messages in psock->cork, the last message triggers the > flushing will result in sending a sk_msg larger than the current > message size. In this case, in tcp_bpf_send_verdict(), 'copied' becomes > negative at least in the following case: > > 468 case __SK_DROP: > 469 default: > 470 sk_msg_free_partial(sk, msg, tosend); > 471 sk_msg_apply_bytes(psock, tosend); > 472 *copied -= (tosend + delta); // <==== HERE > 473 return -EACCES; > > Therefore, it could lead to the following BUG with a proper value of > 'copied' (thanks to syzbot). We should not use negative 'copied' as a > return value here. > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > kernel BUG at net/socket.c:733! > Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP > Modules linked in: > CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 3265 Comm: syz-executor510 Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-syzkaller-00060-gd07b43284ab3 #0 > Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > pstate: 61400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) > pc : sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:733 [inline] > pc : sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:728 [inline] > pc : __sock_sendmsg+0x5c/0x60 net/socket.c:745 > lr : sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] > lr : __sock_sendmsg+0x54/0x60 net/socket.c:745 > sp : ffff800088ea3b30 > x29: ffff800088ea3b30 x28: fbf00000062bc900 x27: 0000000000000000 > x26: ffff800088ea3bc0 x25: ffff800088ea3bc0 x24: 0000000000000000 > x23: f9f00000048dc000 x22: 0000000000000000 x21: ffff800088ea3d90 > x20: f9f00000048dc000 x19: ffff800088ea3d90 x18: 0000000000000001 > x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 000000002002ffaf > x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 > x11: 0000000000000000 x10: ffff8000815849c0 x9 : ffff8000815b49c0 > x8 : 0000000000000000 x7 : 000000000000003f x6 : 0000000000000000 > x5 : 00000000000007e0 x4 : fff07ffffd239000 x3 : fbf00000062bc900 > x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 00000000fffffdef > Call trace: > sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:733 [inline] > __sock_sendmsg+0x5c/0x60 net/socket.c:745 > ____sys_sendmsg+0x274/0x2ac net/socket.c:2597 > ___sys_sendmsg+0xac/0x100 net/socket.c:2651 > __sys_sendmsg+0x84/0xe0 net/socket.c:2680 > __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2689 [inline] > __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2687 [inline] > __arm64_sys_sendmsg+0x24/0x30 net/socket.c:2687 > __invoke_syscall arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:35 [inline] > invoke_syscall+0x48/0x110 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:49 > el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x40/0xe0 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:132 > do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:151 > el0_svc+0x34/0xec arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:712 > el0t_64_sync_handler+0x100/0x12c arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:730 > el0t_64_sync+0x19c/0x1a0 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:598 > Code: f9404463 d63f0060 3108441f 54fffe81 (d4210000) > ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > Fixes: 4f738adba30a ("bpf: create tcp_bpf_ulp allowing BPF to monitor socket TX/RX data") > Reported-by: syzbot+58c03971700330ce14d8@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Cc: John Fastabend > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang > --- > net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c > index 53b0d62fd2c2..fe6178715ba0 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c > @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int tcp_bpf_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size) > err = sk_stream_error(sk, msg->msg_flags, err); > release_sock(sk); > sk_psock_put(sk, psock); > - return copied ? copied : err; > + return copied > 0 ? copied : err; Does it make more sense to make the condition err: is err 0 iif everything is ok? (completely untested!) return err ? err : copied; > } > > enum { > -- > 2.34.1 > >